Canadian Centurion tanks question

[Dan Martel]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

With the rear armoured fuel tank added, the Brits added the suffix 'LR' to the nomenclature - was that the same in Canada?

Yes. Remember that the Canadian Army's main focus during the 50's and 60's was NATO, and the Canadian Brigade Group was assigned to the British 2nd Division, so British nomenclature in terms of the Centurion was axiomatic. Also, third line maintenance for the tanks was undertaken at the British Base Workshop in Wetter, so commonality in parts description was preferable to having a British and a Canadian designation for the same thing.

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

As an aside, was there a Canadian ECC for a Mk5/1 (a Mk5 with applique armour)?

Not that I've found. The document I quoted only lists the ones I provided, other than the command version of the Mk 5 which is 118203 and the Mk 5 fitted for IR which is 118205. It doesn't appear that uparmouring was a Canadian Army priority for the tanks stationed in Canada.

In the "Staff Data Handbook (Interim)" dated March 1975, it shows the Mk 11 ECC as 118305 and the Mk 11 command version as 118306. The Centurion bridgelayer was 118401 and the Centurion ARV was 118801.

For those unaware, the command version of a tank was exactly the same as a gun tank, but with a different radio set-up. In the case of the Centurion, a gun tank had two radios. A command tank had at least three, some four, radios.

Tony, yes, the hull. I knew that. I blame old age.

Malcolm, is your version fitted with the 100 gallon auxiliary gas tank at the back? It would look like the photo posted by Ed Storey at the beginning of this thread.

Cheers,
Dan.

[Malcolm Towrie]

Originally Posted by Dan Martel

Malcolm, is your version fitted with the 100 gallon auxiliary gas tank at the back? It would look like the photo posted by Ed Storey at the beginning of this thread.

Cheers,
Dan.

Dan,
Yes, it is. At the risk of offending the purists, for phase 1 of the restoration (get it driving) we are considering NOT installing the two large fuel tanks in the hull and using just the rear tank. This will give us better access to the engine for maintenance and repair, at least until we put a few miles on it and gain some experience. Keep in mind the engine we bought was rebuilt by Scottish Aviation in the mid-70's so, despite its good condition due to the excellent storage procedure, hoses, belts, and elastomers are 40 years old.
I am also considering not installing the auxiliary engine initially, and relying on warm weather, four 12v batteries in place of the original four 6v batteries to provide massive starting capability and using the 45 amp generator on the engine to keep them charged. One puzzle I have is our Mk 11? tank does not seem to have the voltage/current regulator dedicated to the engine mounted generator. Anyway, that is another topic for another thread.

Malcolm